Basis function compression for field probe monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Field monitoring using field probes allows for accurate measurement of magnetic field perturbations, such as from eddy currents, during MRI scanning. However, errors may result when the spatial variation of the fields is not well-described by the conventionally used spherical harmonics model that has the maximum order constrained by the number of probes. The objective of this work was to develop and validate a field monitoring approach that compresses higher order spherical harmonics into a smaller set of new basis functions that can be characterized using fewer probes. METHODS: Field monitoring of acquisitions was repeated with probes in different locations. High-order field dynamics were computed from this "calibration" data assembled from provided scans, from which compression matrices could be devised using principal component analysis. Compression matrices were then used to fit field dynamics using "compressed" basis functions with data from 16 probes, which were then used in image reconstruction. Performance was evaluated by assessing the accuracy of computed field dynamics as well as in vivo image quality. Technique generalizability was also assessed by using various acquisition and diffusion encoding strategies in the calibration. RESULTS: Qualitative and quantitative improvements in accuracy were observed when using the proposed fitting method compared to the conventional approach. However, compression effectiveness was influenced by the probe quantity and arrangement, and the specific acquisition data included in the calibration. CONCLUSION: The ability to tailor basis functions to more compactly describe the spatial variation of field perturbations enables improved characterization of fields with rapid spatial variations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".